Re: EXSLT 1.0 Proposed List

On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 20:38 +0000, Frans Englich wrote:
> Here's my advice: start extending your engines to support XSL-T 2.0. I
> bet doing that is close to the labour required for duplicating the
> XSL-T spec to an acceptable quality.

Except that some of us won't use those engines.  I'm still moderately
irate that improvements (EXSLT math functions) I submitted for Saxon
6.5.3 wound up only in the 7.x branch, despite the perfectly reasonable
explanation Michael Kay gave me as to why that happened.

As a user, I'd vastly vastly prefer a more complete set of EXSLT
extensions to being told I really should use XSLT 2.0.  As someone who
has implemented bits and pieces of EXSLT (admittedly years ago), I'd be
much more likely to continue that than to contribute to an XSLT 2.0
project.

(I wasn't a huge fan of XSLT 1.0, but I do use it and even appreciate it
today.  I don't see that ever happening for me with XSLT 2.0.)

Accept the split.  M. David Peterson's earlier suggestion sounded to me
like a sane way to make everyone happy.

Simon St.Laurent
http://simonstl.com/